Great this is now in the coffee corner, so I can react "on topic"I think the intelligent person can clearly see one mistake and one oxymoron in this logicThe mistake is that the word "or" needs to be "and"The oxymoron is too obvious to point out

Well, since this got relegated to the "open" forum, I will comment further

It is not a "mistake" at all to use the word "or" in that sentence, and IMO only a moron (oxy or not) would find it "just" to disarm the responsible hunter and decorated target shooter over the violent actions of someone else.

This morning's Wall Street Journal has another eye-opening article, this time by Dorothy Rabinowitz. The article includes a quote from former Scotland Yard official John O'Connor who told the BBC that what Americans did to control crime is "they locked people up... We haven't got the heart for that over here." The article adds that a former (British) police union head argued, "Americans police by force. We don't want to do that here."

Give you a glimmer of insight into what's wrong? What are police if not force? Force is exactly why you have police: to force people who are a danger to their society out of the society, by incarceration or, if that doesn't work, by termination. Effective police not only clean up the society, they give birth to second thoughts in malefactors who otherwise would damage the society. But an unarmed police force that doesn't have "the heart for that" is an invitation to the kind of thing that's happening now in various English cities and here in the U.S. in Philadelphia. The alternative to an effective police force is an armed citizenry. In the absence of both, society becomes a jungle.

Pegelli, it sure seems to me that you have everything backwards, even beyond the point of this debate. I could swear that you originally came to this post and addressed me in a manner that was guilty of the very kind of conduct you purport to despise ... which to me is the weakest position to be in of all.

But to answer your original question, sure, I can disagee with anyone civilly ... without any implied name-calling or insults at all ... provided that said person likewise conducts himself under the same set of rules

So, with that in mind, if you'd like to get back to the subject at hand ... and stick to facts (or to at least give opinions while leaving the personal digs aside) ... I would be more than happy to engage in a pleasant debate with you

Cheers!

Jack

PS: In keeping with this, if you honestly think that the hunter and target shooter in my scenario should have their freedoms taken from them, all because of the transgressions of the 3rd guilty party, then we are so far apart in ideology on the proper assessment of blame as to make any agreement between us impossible. We will just have to agree to disagree.

But to answer your original question, sure, I can disagee with anyone civilly ... without any implied name-calling or insults at all ... provided that said person likewise conducts himself under the same set of rules

Don't think so. I adressed you with exactly the same words as you used in the post above. So if you didn't like what I wrote then my only advice can be "don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you".

Secondly I have never been banned from any internet forum, I think that's an honour you can't claim

I won't go into firearms, because that's an area where I am afraid we'll indeed have to agree to disagree.

Don't think so. I adressed you with exactly the same words as you used in the post above. So if you didn't like what I wrote then my only advice can be "don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you".

Once again Pegelli, you certainly have a strange way of re-arranging the facts. A quick review of this thread will show I originally never addressed you at all ... it was you who originally addressed me with some lip. I guess, it was by your same "logic" that you concluded disarming two responsible, innocent men of their weapons was "proper action" for the transgrssions of the 3rd (and guilty) party.

Secondly I have never been banned from any internet forum, I think that's an honour you can't claim

Sounds like, instead of sticking to the topic and playing fair Pegelli, you are deliberately baiting me to have it happen again

Hell, for that matter, I've been thrown out of plenty of pubs too, for brawling back in the day, which (looking at your photo) is another honor I am sure you can't claim either

Yet, as with here, I have also shaken hands afterward with fellas I originally bumped heads with, cleaned up, and been invited back in too--and had an even better time than before with a new pal--because sometimes mutual respect can be gained from a clash.

But you know what Pegelli ... despite my "indelicate" (ok, sometimes confrontational) personality, I still never shot anyone

Once again Pegelli, you certainly have a strange way of re-arranging the facts. A quick review of this thread will show I originally never addressed you at all ... it was you who originally addressed me with some lip. I guess, it was by your same "logic" that you concluded disarming two responsible, innocent men of their weapons was "proper action" for the transgrssions of the 3rd (and guilty) party.

Talk about a strange way to distort facts: First of all I never addressed you personally in my post, I only quoted your words to address the people who supported your position in this debate. Obviously that includes yourself.

Secondly I did it by using exactly the same words (= The intelligent person can clearly see......) as you used to address people who did not agree with your position, which obviously includes me.

What's sauce for the goose......

For the rest I did not call you names or ridicule you or people who agree with your opinion in this matter. Reading your next post that is not something that can be said of you

Well, then let me extend an olive branch to you and say I am sorry if my leading comment hurt your feelings in some way.

I felt the obviousness of what should be done in the mock scenario was prima facie.

I suppose it is worth my remembering that different people/cultures place different levels of value on human freedom and choice; some people/cultures value "human freedom and choice" above all else, while other people/cultures want to enforce and pigeon-hole "all humanity" in the exact same way, based on the potential for transgressions of a minority of deviants.

And if yours is the later ideology, you are right, we will never come to an agreement on this issue.

I believe all people should be free to do whatever they want to do, so long as "what they do" does not interfere with the rights/life/liberty of other people. And if that kind of freedom means bearing arms and enjoying hunting, so be it. If it means enjoying target practice with a gun, so be it. If it means carrying a weapon for self-defense, so be it. It is only when any person uses a weapon (or any other freedom) in such a way as to deprive or endanger another person's rights/life/freedom unjustly that gives "the authorities" any right to deprive that person of his freedoms/arms, etc., because it is only at that point where said person has now proven himself irresponsible/dangerous in his use of that freedom.

But without such a proven infraction, IMO to deprive any man or woman of any of their freedoms, when they have never shown a propensity to misuse their freedoms, is the very definition of the word "unjust" ... and IMO this kind of government suppression over the people becomes a greater crime against "humanity" than any individual crime it intends to prevent. To punish/restrict all over the potential misdeeds of a few can never truly be called "justice"; it can only be called "suppression" (if not outright "injustice").

Well, then let me extend an olive branch to you and say I am sorry if my leading comment hurt your feelings in some way.

Accepted and I also extend one. In the end I know you're a nature lover who takes good shots (with a camera I mean) and that's what this site is about, not about political discussions on guns and gun control.

I'm sure if we would have a beer (or a few) on this in a bar we could even have a fun conversation on the topic allthough I doubt we'll ever fully agree

Accepted and I also extend one. In the end I know you're a nature lover who takes good shots (with a camera I mean) and that's what this site is about, not about political discussions on guns and gun control.

Cool then. Hatchet buried and compliments returned: I still remember a flower shot that you posted a couple years back that was exceptional and have always watched your posted photos since.

A few beers in a bar with a guy with a confrontational personality and proud history of bar brawls!? I wish I could take a shot of that!!! Photographic shot, that is.

Well, geeze, since I am surrounded by 2 now-friendly former antagonists (), let me relay a relevant story that yall might find funny:

Back in the day, I was at a sports bar in Los Angeles watching a fight and the fellas were all pretty into it (I think it was Chavez vs. Rosario). One of the guys there took exception to something I said regarding Rosario's boxing technique (imagine that ) and so we decided to "take it outside" to prove our points ... well, he bounced a few points off of me, and I bounced a few points off of him, and after awhile we both realized that we each knew what we were talking about, but just "did things different." (I felt I was pretty far ahead, but I am sure Kenny would tell a different version )

Anyway, to make a long story short, we both shook hands and (though a little chopped-up and winded) decided to go back in and see if there was anything left of the fight we were watching. The bouncer shook his head and let us back in and I think we caught the last two rounds.

Anyway, that was back in 1988, in my last year of college, and this fella and I have been friends ever since (he's a German Jew and I am German-Irish). We still get into "interesting" disagreements, twenty-something years later, but to me it just adds "spice" to the friendship--and so it just goes to show that good things can come from butting heads originally

Slobodan, he also has never shot anybody, so it's probably safe enough for me

Well, Pegelli, if you and I ever do go to a pub together, and we happen to get into it, I am still gentleman enough to make sure you get home safe after it's over. Of course, if it turns out that you whip me, then I may just have to shoot you

I live in Philadelphia and unfortunately I'm better armed than the police when i go out at night. I wish it didn't have to be that way. I feel safer walking the streets of Manhattan at 3 am than I do the city which I spent the majority of my life in.